...but I wish your tests were a bit more documented. I assume you shot your pictures in jpg, and what they show is a pretty good handling of the NR algorithm by Ricoh's engineers. I'd have liked to see a downloadable raw sample to make up my mind, as cameras of this class won't be set to jpeg most of the time. Further, a raw would have shown the expectable level of noise that's been wiped by the in camera NR process. A general 'softness' in the 100% crops is a tell-tale sign of this.

Oh, and while I'm at it, stop shooting your door knob for the iso settings. The mostly uniform blue background is a free gift to any self-respecting NR algorithm, as it makes its job much too easy ; better have a pint at your local pub after 8 PM and shoot indoor. Don't forget that tripod to offset the lager parameter though, it would be bad science otherwise.

All that cash for another camera without a proper viewfinder. Camera shake plus drain on battery. I'll carry a top of the range compact when a proper viewfinder is fitted.

I'd much rather get one of the nice new Micro Four Thirds cameras than this monstrous-looking thing. The Panasonic Lumix GF1 is basically SLR quality in a nice small camera without the complexity of a viewfinder.

*25* shots out of a pair of triple-As? Will they go flat that fast even shorted out?

Toasty.

I like the idea, but with this price and without a bigger sensor (not that the Sigmas do very well with theirs) I suspect the E-P1 and Panasonic micro-4/3 cameras are worth the premium. I'm still deciding, based on whether the sensor shift image stabiliser is worth the lack of sharpness on the Oly when used with a Leica adaptor.

Of course, if the Leica X1 is cheap enough, it'll be more competition - but somehow I doubt it will be. (Likewise I'd rather have an M9 than an E-P1 or GF1, but not as much as I'd rather have three grand's change.)

Does that mean you have to be a giant douchenozzle to own one?

But with a sensor size that small, and a price that big - no thanks. At that price I would expect a micro-four-third sensor at the very least.

AC, you're confusing several classes of camera. This Ricoh, as well as the (excellent) Sigmas are compacts that fit your pocket. The micro 4/3 ones won't. The smaller Leica might, but then you will have to sell your last pair of pants to own it, makes no sense. The M9 is a fascinating exercise. Too bad it comes with a Bayer-sensor. If Sigma had anything like Leica's rep (and not those herds of hating, naysaying fudders) they could kick out the same thing with a full frame Foveon *drool*

The great thing about the GR Digital range is that Ricoh give you a hell of a lot of control over the picture taking process, more than most compact cameras do. Sure, it's a small sensor so you get noise at higher ISOs, and it's a wide angle lens so you need to get closer to your subject, but within its minor limitations it's a fine picture-taking machine for the reasonably serious photographer.

It's compact and pocketable, more pocketable than any micro four thirds camera (I can just about fit an Olympus Pen E-P1 with 17mm pancake lens in my pocket, but it's not comfortable), feels sturdy and well made.

As far as Alan Firminger's remarks, I think most of the delay with compact cameras comes from autofocus. The GRD can be focused manually - also they have a fixed focus modes, where you can set infinity focus or 'snap shot' focus (a few yards away) reducing shutter lag to practically nothing.

The only problem I've ever had with my original GRD is the long time it takes to write RAW files. Ricoh have completely fixed that, it seems. If my old GRD gave up the ghost, I'd seriously upgrade.

Who'd pay for something like this when the camera in my phone (which I got for free, natch) is 24 mega pixels. What? The sensor is only a 1/1000th of an inch in size? Pah, everyone knows it's all about the pixels baby.

Phone cameras rule!